Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV49357, Date: 2023-02-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV49357    Hearing Date: February 10, 2023    Dept: 28

Plaintiff Eduardo Alcauter 's Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories; Plaintiff Eduardo Alcauter’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories; Plaintiff Eduardo Alcauter’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents.

Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

On December 28, 2020, Plaintiff Eduardo Alcauter (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Edvard Chilingaryan (“Chilingaryan”) and Las Marias Pallets, LLC (“Pallets”) for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.  

On June 8, 2021, Defendants filed an answer.  

On June 17, 2022, Intervenor State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Intervenor”) filed a Complaint in Intervention on behalf of Chilingaryan.  

On February 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed Motions to Compel Discovery Responses to be heard on October 13 and 14, 2022. The Court continued the hearing on the motion to February 10, 2023. On October 3, 2022, Chilingaryan and Intervenor (“Opposing Defendants”) filed an opposition. On October 5, 2022, Plaintiff filed a reply.

Trial is currently scheduled for March 14, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiff requests the Court grant the motions to compel discovery. Plaintiff also requests the Court impose sanctions totaling $1,310.00 for each motion.

Opposing Defendants request the Court deny the motion, or only grant sanctions on Chilingaryan.

LEGAL STANDARD

Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.300, “If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply: (b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” According to CCP § 2030.260, for a response to interrogatories to be timely, it must be served within 30 days of service.  CCP § 2031.260 provides the same 30-day deadline for request for production responses.

California Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a) provides that “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” According to CCP §2023.010(d), misuse of the discovery process includes “failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”

California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.290(c) states that “the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

DISCUSSION

Discovery

On February 16, 2021, Plaintiff served discovery on Chillingaryan. Responses were due on October 29, 2021. Plaintiff granted eight extensions to serve responses. Chillingaryan did not serve responses prior to the filing of this motion.

Opposing Defendants note that Chilingaryan changed counsel in February of 2022—Chilingaryan's new counsel states that they were never made aware, prior to the filing of this motion, that there was outstanding discovery. Intervenor has since served verified responses to Plaintiff’s discovery prior to the initial hearing on this motion.

Sanctions

Sanctions are warranted. Although counsel was unable to provide timely responses due to the lack of Chilingaryan’s communication, Plaintiff still was entitled to timely discovery responses. By failing to provide timely, code-compliant responses, Chilingaryan has misused the discovery process.

Plaintiff requests sanctions of $1,310.00 for each motion, based upon 5 hours of attorney’s work, at a rate of $250.00 per hour, and one $60.00 filling fee. 2 hours were spent drafting the motion, 2 hours were spent reading the opposition and drafting a reply, and 1 hour is anticipated in attending the hearing on the motion. All three motions are substantially similar and are being heard concurrently. Based on the above, the Court awards sanctions totaling $1,430.00 across all motions, based upon 5 hours of attorney’s work and 3 $60.00 filling fees.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Eduardo Alcauter 's Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories is MOOT.

Plaintiff Eduardo Alcauter’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories is MOOT.

 Plaintiff Eduardo Alcauter’s Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents is MOOT.

Plaintiff Eduardo Alcauter’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. Chilingaryan is ordered to pay Plaintiff $1,430.00 in sanctions within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.